"Forest and the Trees" by Senator Larry Craig, Senator (R), Idaho
mhagen at olympus.net
Sat Nov 13 13:58:41 EST 1999
I have to point out that most of the area Clinton is "protecting" has
already been protected, some spots ever since RARE 1. This seems to be a
pretty cheap shot.
On the Olympic, the existing National Forest Wilderness and Roadless
Areas (that's a title, not a description) are included in the new deal.
Oddly, all are accessible via roads. One new NF roadless area,
(literally roadless because it's isolated by terrain, rivers and
national park boundaries) has been added.
As for any application to the real NF road issues: There is no attempt
to deal with the insane and anarchic ORV and ATV use in the remaining
areas of the Forest. There is no money to fix the last few years
backlog of washed out roads. And there is no plan to decommission
truffler1635 at my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <382D34D4.320CFFCC at forestmeister.com>,
> Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote:
> > Senator Craig wrote the following "letter to the editor" to U.S.
> > News & World Report's Nov. 8, 1999 issue. I'll leave it up to
> > yourself to contemplate the profundity of his "thinking".
> > ---------
> > Forest and the trees
> > THE ISSUE BEHIND THE CONFLICT over President Clinton's
> > helter-skelter forest policy making is the public's access to
> > their-not mine, not his-national forests and the responsibility
> > of the Forest Service to manage for healthy forests ["See
> > Forests Through Trees," October 25]. The objective of Clinton's
> > effort is to turn 40 million acres of national forest into
> > restricted-access areas that only 2 percent of the forest
> > visitors (based upon Forest Service figures) will be able to
> > enjoy. The article points out that "the single largest user of
> > national forests is so-called drive-by tourists, who cruise
> > through the woods. . . ." Clinton's policy may be designed to
> > ban logging. However, its effect will be to limit accessby
> > hikers, hunters, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, and
> > cross-country skiers-and to destroy the very reason they chose
> > to visit in the first place: the forest. That's why this policy
> > is going to be extremely unpopular with thoughtful people who
> > enjoy both the forests and the trees.
> Thanks for posting this, Joseph.
> I think if people realized that forests were more than just trees, it
> might make some difference is usage. Locally, we have _a lot_ of hiking
> trails, lakes, etc. But the majority of *usage* is where people can
> drive up to the site they want to go, such as Timberline Lodge on Mt.
> Hood, or Crater Lake on Mt. Mazama, or ... but you get the picture.
> Many areas are now suffering from erosion caused by human encroachment.
> The Summit Trail on Mt. Hood comes to mind, as well as the Multnomah
> Falls trail in the Columbia Gorge; and many other trails to waterfalls
> on Mt. Hood, the Columbia River Gorge, the Coast Range and elsewhere.
> Certain areas along the Cascade Crest Trail are so changed by
> "management" that there's little "forest" left. Regretfully, there is so
> little "old growth" left (let's not even mention climax forest) that
> most urban dwellers (like myself) have to travel for over an hour just
> to reach a forested area to relax in or hunt mushrooms.
> The good news is that there's still some available. The bad news is that
> during weekends the interstate highways are clogged with people trying
> to get away from the interstate highways. (Ain't six billion people in
> the world grand, folks!)
> The Craig family has spent a lot of time in forests. But they still
> can't see the forest for the trees. And as far as forest diversity goes,
> Sen. Craig's record alerts us that his major concern is for the supposed
> jobs created by the timber industry, hunters, and fishermen. The salmon
> issue is still a predominant force in Idaho politics today: Without the
> dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers, Idaho remains landlocked, and
> must resort to the interstate highways for more expensive transportation
> of goods and services than by barges on the rivers. Of course, it also
> means decreased salmon runs, since every turbine a salmon smolt has to
> go through chops up half them. Let's see...half gone the first dam, 3/4
> gone the second dam, 7/8 gone the third dam... you get the point. No add
> up the number of dams between Idaho and the Pacific, and Sen. Craig's
> bias becomes pretty clear. Considering the number of trout produced
> commercial in Idaho, and the decrease of salmon and increase of trout
> prices, there may be method to his madness.
> Daniel B. Wheeler
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
More information about the Ag-forst